Leveraging Canada’s Innovation Ecosystem January 2016
2. Canada’s Outdated IP Regime For businesses seeking to partner with Canadian universities on research projects, interview participants expressed concern that the commercialization of research stemming from industry-university partnerships, and the process of determining ownership of IP, is more challenging in Canada than most jurisdictions. They largely felt that Canada’s current system of IP laws needs improvement, and that doing so would enhance Canada’s competitiveness. It was noted that Canada’s IP laws are inconsistent in the impact they have on different industries. For example, a specific IP framework applies to Canada’s process of signing procurement contracts with defence contractors, whereby ownership of IP emerging from the contract belongs to the government. Concern was expressed by representatives of this sector that this could limit the potential growth of defence companies in Canada. Our research supports the claim that IP laws affect various industries differently. For example, a report from Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D) argues that Canada’s IP regime affords less protection to innovators in their industry than to those in other advanced economies, drawing attention to long timelines associated with regulatory delays. They argue that such delays could negatively affect the patent terms 40 associated with discoveries, thereby impacting the competitiveness of Canadian firms. A well-balanced IP regime provides the incentive to innovate while also promoting the efficient sharing of information to allow for incremental innovation. According to the Global Intellectual Property Centre (US Chamber 41 of Commerce), companies in countries with strong IP systems are 40% more likely to invest in R&D. On a range of over thirty indicators, results from their 2015 International IP Index show that Canada’s IP regime scores th 42 relatively poorly, placing 11 behind such competitor countries as Australia or the United States. In response to concerns, the Canadian government began taking steps to upgrade the national policy framework for IP. The 2014 Economic Action Plan confirmed that Canada would join key international trademark agreements, with implementation to take place between 2015 and 2017. An issue of particular significance for researchers is that in Canada, there is currently no national strategy to govern IP ownership in industry-university partnerships. Instead, each university has its own policy, resulting in a range of approaches. Many of Canada’s research-intensive universities have recently updated their IP policies to allow for greater flexibility surrounding ownership (or are in the process of doing so), and the U15 has called for Canada to “invest in trials of new, progressive approaches to IP commercialization, such as those being 43 implemented by some U15 institutions, in order to identify best practices and improve outcomes.”
Page 13 of 22 www.mitacs.ca